Parshas Chukas

By Dr. Nosson Chayim Leff

Sfas Emes, Zechuso Tagein Aleinu, Parshas Chukas

The Sfas Emes begins this m'amar with a quote from the Zohar. The
Zohar notes that our parsha starts: "Zos chukas haTorah" ("This is the
Torah's decree ... "). By contrast, in Sefer Devarim (4:44-45), the
Torah communicates the same message, but does it with very different
language and a very different tone. The pasuk in Devarim phrases the
message as: "Vezos haTorah asher sahm Moshe lifnei B'nei
Yisroel. Eileh ha'eidos, vehachukim, vehamishpatim ...". ("And this is
the Torah that Moshe presented to the Jewish people. Here are the
testimonies and the decrees and the statutes ... ")

The Sfas Emes does not explain why he -- and the Zohar -- quote the
pasuk in Sefer Devarim in the present context. Apparently he took it
for granted that we would know why he -- and the Zohar -- cite the
other pasuk. This question -- why introduce the pasuk from Devarim --
is important. For, if it were not trying to teach us something, the
Sfas Emes would not have given the pasuk from Devarim the first place
in his ma'amar. Accordingly, I suggest that we attempt to answer an
obvious question. What are the Sfas Emes and the Zohar trying to
teach us by giving such prominence to a pasuk whose message is
virtually the same as the pasuk in our parsha?

The answer, I suggest. is that style and nuance are vital for the tone
of a message. Tone, in turn, is crucial for how a person relates to
the message. Chazal have taught us -- by example -- to be sensitive
to the Torah's stylistic nuances. In that spirit, note some important
differences in style and nuance between the two texts. Thus, the
initial phrase in Devarim -- "And this ...." -- comes in sharp
contrast to the abrupt "This is ... " in our parsha. Likewise, the
apparently unnecessary clause "asher sahm Moshe" in Devarim strikes a
noticeably friendly note. By contrast, the tone implied by the
presentation in Chukas comes across as a stark -- "take it or leave
it". Note one more difference. The phrasing in Devarim presents the
Torah in terms of laws which have varying degrees of accessibility to
human intelligence. By contrast, the text in Chukas presents the Torah
as a "Chuka" -- totally inaccessible to our rationality.

I suggest that what the Zohar and the Sfas Emes are telling us by
quoting the two pesukim with their marked differences in nuance is a
basic yesod (principle). They are pointing out that there are
different ways of viewing the Torah, or of presenting it (to other
people and/or to ourselves). As long as we observe Halacha, each of
these modes of presentation is valid. They may speak to different
people. Different perspectives on the same issue may speak to the
same person at different points in his/her life (or even to the same
person at different points in the same day). If we are aware of this
yesod concerning equal validity, we can spare ourselves much fruitless
argument (including arguments with oneself).

Moving on, we find the Sfas Emes's reading of the word "Chok." We are
used to seeing "Chok" as a "decree". A decree is: something external
to us, something imposed on us with no apparent reason; somethng that
we must somehow muster the strength to swallow. The Sfas Emes views
Chukim very differently. He sees the word Chok as coming from the
root CHaKoK: to engrave. Thus, he views Chukim as behavior that -- far
from being extrinsic to us -- is, in fact, engraved in our psyches. In
today's parlance, he might express this idea by saying that HaShem has
"hard-wired" us to observe even the most difficult chukim. Note that
"Chakok" has the connotation of being carved into the material -- in
this instance, carved into us - and hence, indelible.

The Sfas Emes continues with a thought that we have seen before: That
our mission in life is to extend the light of the Torah to all
Creation. In reality, the whole cosmos contains the light of the
Torah; for HaShem used the Torah to create the world. However, HaShem
chose to put away (to be "goneiz") the light of His Omnipresence. And
we have been given the task (and the responsibility) of finding and
making contact with HaShem's Presence in all creation.

How can a person accomplish that momentous task? The Sfas Emes
proposes two complementary approaches. First, he notes an alternative
meaning of the word "chok": namely, "a fixed, daily portion." (For an
example of this usage, see Mishlei 30:8: "Hatrifeini lechem chuki.")
Mention of a "fixed portion," in turn, evokes for the Sfas Emes a
passage in Gemara Brochos (32): "Chassidim harishonim ahsu Torah'sam
keva ... " ("The chassidim of earlier generations made their Torah
learning the fixed point in their lives ... ") The Sfas Emes takes
this alternative meaning of "chok" -- fixed, immovable -- as an
injunction to have knowledge of the Torah fixed and immovable within
us. Thus, the Sfas Emes is telling us that knowledge of the Torah will
enable us to find -- and maintain contact with -- HaShem in the
physical world.

The second approach that the Sfas Emes proposes to keep close to
HaShem's Presence is harder. The Sfas Emes tells us that if we go
about our everyday, mundane activities with an awareness of HaShem and
a desire to do retzon HaShem (HaShem's will), we can in fact transform
those activities into a source of contact with HaShem. He proceeds to
elaborate on the idea that a person can -- and should -- look behind
"reality" to see Reality, i.e., HaShem's Omnipresence.

The Sfas Emes recognizes that some of us may not (yet) have the
capacity to see HaShem -- the Source -- in the midst of the world
(="olam"= hidden) in which He is hiding. To help us, the Sfas Emes
offers a meta-pshat on a pasuk in Koheles (2:14). The pasuk says:
"He'chacham einav berosho ... ". This pasuk is conventionally
understood as saying: an intelligent person uses his eyes and his head
to anticipate the likely consequences of events that are occurring
now. The Sfas Emes reads this pasuk very differently. Working with
the word "rosho", the Sfas Emes sees this pasuk as telling us: "An
intelligent person sees HaShem -- the Raishis -- as the Source from
which all existence flows."

The Sfas Emes goes even further. Not only is HaShem's Presence not
easily apparent, but to the naive observer the world seems to be full
of autonomous forces that are distant and, indeed, antagonistic to
Kedusha (sanctity). Don't let superficial appearances mislead you,
says the Sfas Emes. Those phenomena, too, draw their existence from
HaShem. Why is the world like this -- confusing and misleading?
Because it is HaShem's will that He be nistar (hidden). As we have
seen, this is a fact of life to which the Sfas Emes returns, and
confronts time and time -- and time -- again.